Arif Hodzic

The historian Polybius blamed the Roman commanders, who had apparently ignored advice and taken a dangerous route.

For Polybius, this kind of recklessness was a Roman character flaw.

He describes it as this fault of daring and violence, which makes them think they can sail and travel where they will at no matter what season.

Modern historians have another theory,

Perhaps the Corvus, the boarding ramp attached to the Roman warships contributed to the disaster.

The device may have weighed down the ships and made them unstable.

Interestingly, there are no references to the Corvus being used after the first Punic war.

Perhaps this is why

In the aftermath of this catastrophe, the Romans set about rebuilding their fleet.

At this stage, it might have made sense to negotiate with Carthage, but the Romans being the Romans, the war carried on.

On their return from North Africa, the Roman fleet was caught up in another terrible storm.

150 ships were lost and an estimated 60,000 men.

In the years following this maritime disaster, it seems that the Romans tried to stay on land as much as possible.

Sicily became the main battleground once again, and from 255 to 248 BCE, there were multiple clashes across the island.

During the Battle of Panormus , the Romans faced a daunting challenge.

Carthage had dozens of war elephants, which had been shipped over from Africa.

But despite this advantage, the Romans won.

They also managed to capture many of Carthage's elephants.

Rome generally did well in land battles.

When it came to naval warfare, however, Carthage still had the advantage.